9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Jesse Ventura, on the Alex Jones show today, said he visited Ground Zero a few days after 9/11 in his capacity as Governor of Minnesota. While there he was told the workers had to stop digging because they had hit pools of molten metal that would ruin the machinery.

I am still puzzled by the whole molten metal thing. I find Judy Wood's and Jim Fetzer's arguments questioning that there ever was molten metal to be persuasive, but... there are a few problems with it.

Now, Jesse Ventura didn't actually see the molten metal with his own eyes, and the witnesses who claim to have seen it could well be lying. (I've worked on hot tar roofs and know that long before the soles melt off your boots your feet have gotten way too hot to keep working.)

But then why, having gone to the trouble of planting this false story, complete with witnesses, photos and satellite thermal images, did they omit any mention of the molten metal in the official 9/11 Commission Report?

Thoughts anyone?

Views: 164


You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by David L Kaas on November 19, 2010 at 4:27pm
Check the website "richplanet.net" for a new perspective on what happened. Look on the left hand side of the page for the "911 Analysis" This gives a whole new theory on what exactly occurred and what is now left. There were doctored photos as well. But what's coming soon on "Conspiracy Theory" scares me even more!
Comment by Thoth II on October 28, 2010 at 4:25pm
Ben, good comments,
(1) I'm not sure about the thermite working underwater, hadn't heard about that. I guess to me it is obvious that if the molten metal was there it would evaporate water into steam and I remember pictures of wetness in the subbasement but they weren't steaming. I just don't see evidence for heat myself. So to me the main thing is I don't see any steam, so there wasn't heat, seems logical to me.
(b) I don't know the particulars here about what is termed "disinfo", but I do know that for example in JFK they messed up big time in faking data, and Jim's team of experts found those obvious "bloopers" in all the faked data. So maybe the "disinfo" people with thermite, if that is what is going on here, and my guess is that it indeed is, just messed up. Sometimes, one day , one disinfo guy will put out disinfo in a sloppy way, then the next day another guy in his team will realize how stupid the mistake was and have to make more lies on top of lies to backtrack. It's like the old adage about getting trapped in your own lies, where truth is easier and more natural to sustain.
(c) I don't think mini nukes work in a "China syndrome" way. They are small enough to where they do their thing: they use up all their energy to pulverize the material in fine dust and no energy is left to create much heating. Thus any dust falling isn't that hot, plus remember fine dust has air blowing over it as it flutters to ground and so that will cool it much faster any heat that was produced. However, trace elements like tritium would be left over, and we don't know the details of the bombs, so it could have been likely a combo of fission-fusion mini nuke with heavy radioactive fallout isotopes within the dust. That could explain those judy wood dumptrucks bringing in all that dirt to cover up this fallout like at Chernobyl, but it isn't necessarily a high temp. I myself have felt radioactive sources that aren't a high temp., but could be irradiating your cells.
(d) I don't know about the official report, except obviously the govt. pancake collapse is total fabrication. I really don't know if thermate was directly related to the govt. official story or if it was just a team of people obsessing over thermate for some dumb reason, I can't sort all that out.
(e) in our previous open discussion I think a few weeks ago, Mehmet and I were discussing his powerpoint which included , I thought, a very persuasive case for a detailed controlled demolition sequence use some type of explosive he is familiar with. That is probably a few pages back on this thread.
Comment by Ben Collet on October 28, 2010 at 4:12pm
I tend to agree that there was no molten metal. Perhaps you're right that the molten metal evidence was concocted to support the Jones thermate theory. But in that case why undermine their case by adding evidence that the pools of molten metal remained in a molten state for weeks? Even if thermate continued working underwater - as Stephen Jones suggests - it should be fairly easy to prove the impossibility of that heat-producing compound keeping steel in a molten state for weeks.

Mini-nukes might keep it hot enough though. But then wouldn't it have continued melting down into the earth as was anticipated in "The China Syndrome"?

If it was, as you suggest, a false clue to support the Jones' thermate theory, that would explain why it was not mentioned in the Official Report.

I still don't understand where Jim stands on this.

BTW, what do you mean, "Mehmet's controlled demolition sequence"?
Comment by Thoth II on October 28, 2010 at 4:04pm
Also, just put yourself into the minds of the evil perps ( perish the thought! but we can be hypothetical for a minute), at least the technical wizards who were given this "assignment". They had to be careful not to damage Manhatten in the process and be very very surgical. The best way to do it is the way we saw. Just turn the buildings to dust and "poof" like Judy Wood says, problem solved without a big earthquake of material falling.
Also, would they be dumb enough to use thermite primarily for the bulk destruction. They must have known thermite would melt all that steel and leave a huge lump of molten metal which would solidify and heavens knowns where that would go, including seeping into the subways and ruin the transport system. This was a real estate scam at some level and Larry Silverstein wanted his property destroyed but noone else in manhatten wanted their property destroyed. Thermite would have been a dumb way to do it because it certainly would have damaged things around the town.

And the same logic of the evil perps apply to planes. Why fly planes and all the risk that entails when all you need is a CGI or hologram and a compliant media (which was compliant since JFK?).
Comment by Thoth II on October 28, 2010 at 3:41pm
there was no molten metal because hypothesis h2 about thermite didn't happen, ha ha.

really, if the basic phenomenon we observed in the videos of the twin towers was dustification (that and steel members being hurled outward are all I really see there) I doubt any energy would be left over to melt steel also. It is possible a small amount of melting took place in the bulk of structure's steel, but that clearly isn't the main phenomenon we observe and that points to another explanation, which I myself have come around to one of two likliliest h's : mini nukes or Mehmet's controlled demolition sequence, either of which are consistent with the observable phenomonon.

What evidence is there of molten metal? that Steve Jones video with steel pouring out of one floor? doesn't make sense, that maybe was those lead batteries on one floor only. Those obviously faked photos of men peering over molten metal? Judy wood observed that water splashing around didn't steam up like it would if the floor was as hot as Jones boys would lead you to believe. I've also seen those "hot satellite images" but to me those are hard to interpret being taken so far up in space. Plus I remember on the judy wood site people walking around in the subbasements I remember, so not much molten stuff could have been down there.

I myself think molten metal is a part of the fake and exaggerated data set intended to further the special pleading of the thermite followers.

I remember how hard Jim and his crew of experts worked to separate out the fake and good data in JFK and evidently 911 is following suit: separating out real and fake photos/images, separating out real from fake videos (like Fairbanks and Z films), trying to make sense of eyewitnesses.

Funny how nothing is new under the sun.
Comment by Ben Collet on October 28, 2010 at 12:41pm
Jim, I read your article, "Thinking Critically about Conspiracy Theories". You have two footnotes, 42 and 54, that refer to the molten metal question. 54 contains a link to an article in the American Free Press, but unfortunately the link is broken.

You seem to be accepting the existence of the pools of molten metal as fact. But I remember you pointing out the absurdity of the photos of the men supposedly gazing down at the liquid metal and observing that if they had actually been that close to the intense heat of molten steel that their faces would have melted off.

I am confused.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 27, 2010 at 8:28pm
I say the most about the molten metal issue in "Thinking Critically about Conspiracy Theories", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html I would welcome further thoughts.

© 2022   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service